From: | Philip Alger <paalger0(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Cary Huang <cary(dot)huang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_trigger_ddl() to retrieve the CREATE TRIGGER statement |
Date: | 2025-10-17 19:07:49 |
Message-ID: | CAPXBC8JV54wejhNAhgSPLgupVkpfpQPwGkjuuY-17GF12S_+-w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Jim,
I am now wondering if introducing these new set of parameters to
> pg_get_triggerdef() would be a better solution that creating a new
> function.
>
> Doing so we keep it consistent with the other pg_get*def functions. What
> do you think?
>
The rationale behind it is here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/945db7c5-be75-45bf-b55b-cb1e56f2e3e9%40dunslane.net
So, I am new to PG development, but I am hesitant to modify the existing
`pg_get_triggerdef` or its parameters. My concern is that users may
currently rely on its existing functionality and parameter structure, and
altering it could introduce breaking changes. I think the naming
`pg_get_trigger_ddl` is actually better than `triggerdef` because all the
current `pg_get*def` implementations accept OIDs. To my knowledge, the only
one that accepted an OIDs or a name is `pg_get_viewdef`, but the name
variant is now deprecated.
--
Best,
Phil Alger
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-10-17 19:11:10 | Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-10-17 18:45:12 | Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats() |